So I think it should be an easy statement and sell to all the high end thinkers in the
forum that one should not ever play a martingale. You would throw everything you have
at the agreement against. And the truth is that everyone knows or believes that somehow
this will lead to catastrophe, for obvious reasons.

Correct?

So then we advance to the reverse martingale. Which nobody likes because no one knows where
to end.

So here is a typical run with a negative progression. The paradigm is always to win 1 unit. Then
begin again. So we play and win. Maybe we win 10 or 20 units. Then comes the tough streak where
the escalating bets, and total in the red, grow quickly. It seems to me that there are several parts of
out brain. And when we’re sweating it out, we’re looking to the end of our money, our bank, whatever
we set as the failsafe of out progression.

In all honesty what I believe and imagine is that the gross amount we grow negative in our play is
usually greater than our 1 unit wins to that point. IN other words, we may be chasing our progression
and are -25 or -30 units? Or more? And to that point we are negative more that what we earned and
then some.

This is another place we find ourselves that almost seems guaranteed. In a world of hurt.

If we were playing the positive progression, we would be accumulating 1 unit losses every time we
lost a progression. Which would be often.. But then when we started winning, the crazy size of our
win increase would quickly catch up with what our paper profit should be.

in other words, if you played the neg progression you might be ahead 10 units. Now you are negative
-10 units. So you escalate your compound bets to “earn” those 10 units (plus the 1 unit for the current
progression.) That is not so hard to do. And you know where to stop. And start over again.

But this gives you the stopping point. I imagine at times that some form of a fib progression might
make it a little friendlier, since you don’t blow out of every progression every time. But haven’t
gone that far.

Of course, if you don’t like or believe this then you just have to go back to #1 and play the traditional
martingale….. You believed it was deadly. Up to you.

So I think it should be an easy statement and sell to all the high end thinkers in the
forum that one should not ever play a martingale. You would throw everything you have
at the agreement against. And the truth is that everyone knows or believes that somehow
this will lead to catastrophe, for obvious reasons.

Correct?

So then we advance to the reverse martingale. Which nobody likes because no one knows where
to end.

So here is a typical run with a negative progression. The paradigm is always to win 1 unit. Then
begin again. So we play and win. Maybe we win 10 or 20 units. Then comes the tough streak where
the escalating bets, and total in the red, grow quickly. It seems to me that there are several parts of
out brain. And when we’re sweating it out, we’re looking to the end of our money, our bank, whatever
we set as the failsafe of out progression.

In all honesty what I believe and imagine is that the gross amount we grow negative in our play is
usually greater than our 1 unit wins to that point. IN other words, we may be chasing our progression
and are -25 or -30 units? Or more? And to that point we are negative more that what we earned and
then some.

This is another place we find ourselves that almost seems guaranteed. In a world of hurt.

If we were playing the positive progression, we would be accumulating 1 unit losses every time we
lost a progression. Which would be often.. But then when we started winning, the crazy size of our
win increase would quickly catch up with what our paper profit should be.

in other words, if you played the neg progression you might be ahead 10 units. Now you are negative
-10 units. So you escalate your compound bets to “earn” those 10 units (plus the 1 unit for the current
progression.) That is not so hard to do. And you know where to stop. And start over again.

But this gives you the stopping point. I imagine at times that some form of a fib progression might
make it a little friendlier, since you don’t blow out of every progression every time. But haven’t
gone that far.

Of course, if you don’t like or believe this then you just have to go back to #1 and play the traditional
martingale….. You believed it was deadly. Up to you.

any personal experience with this? when is actually the “stopping point”?

This may or may not surprise you, but I’m not much of a gambler. Even though
I seem to spend a considerable amount of my time working on it or thinking about it
I seldom go and often have not placed a bet or even had cash on me when I went.

I don’t know the comparison, but think of some activities that you are good at or suck
at. You will go just with an expectation either way.

Well, even though I’ve done it, I’m not the guy in the picture with a fist full of cash
tossing chips all over the place. But when I find the appropriate grind I will be “all in”,
just as I have on a couple occasions in my life.

The open endedness of what I say is disturbing to me. As a method of play. I have not
gotten mental closure on it.

I would say in reality that some people might want to try a martingale. Because the
chances of a bust really are slim and you stand to walk out a winner. HAving said that
I would add the slim chance of the same thing happening in reverse.

So it’s a matter of having and finding a comfort level where, if I play I figure that I have
some kind of a fighting chance. Some comfort level. A martingale player can have that.
The reverse might take a long time waiting.

So I think it should be an easy statement and sell to all the high end thinkers in the
forum that one should not ever play a martingale. You would throw everything you have
at the agreement against. And the truth is that everyone knows or believes that somehow
this will lead to catastrophe, for obvious reasons.

Correct?

So then we advance to the reverse martingale. Which nobody likes because no one knows where
to end.

So here is a typical run with a negative progression. The paradigm is always to win 1 unit. Then
begin again. So we play and win. Maybe we win 10 or 20 units. Then comes the tough streak where
the escalating bets, and total in the red, grow quickly. It seems to me that there are several parts of
out brain. And when we’re sweating it out, we’re looking to the end of our money, our bank, whatever
we set as the failsafe of out progression.

In all honesty what I believe and imagine is that the gross amount we grow negative in our play is
usually greater than our 1 unit wins to that point. IN other words, we may be chasing our progression
and are -25 or -30 units? Or more? And to that point we are negative more that what we earned and
then some.

This is another place we find ourselves that almost seems guaranteed. In a world of hurt.

If we were playing the positive progression, we would be accumulating 1 unit losses every time we
lost a progression. Which would be often.. But then when we started winning, the crazy size of our
win increase would quickly catch up with what our paper profit should be.

in other words, if you played the neg progression you might be ahead 10 units. Now you are negative
-10 units. So you escalate your compound bets to “earn” those 10 units (plus the 1 unit for the current
progression.) That is not so hard to do. And you know where to stop. And start over again.

But this gives you the stopping point. I imagine at times that some form of a fib progression might
make it a little friendlier, since you don’t blow out of every progression every time. But haven’t
gone that far.

Of course, if you don’t like or believe this then you just have to go back to #1 and play the traditional
martingale….. You believed it was deadly. Up to you.

any personal experience with this? when is actually the “stopping point”?

Stoping point is now!!! I mean right now, befor you lost all your money… you may consider to stop at gambleravare. Com…or some similar site

I don’t want to sound as a self promoting dude, but here is some mathematical proof that progressions do not offer an advantage. I understand that the proof uses high level mathematics that are not easily understood by most people. Hey, I admit I don’t understand the proof myself. But this guys claims to have proved in a indisputable, objective, scientific way that progressions offer no benefit whatsoever. They simply do not “work”.

it depends what kind of progression u ll use , i would say yes in a kind of positive ,smooth ,progression and to be applied in 1 to 3 payout ratio and more outside bets [ dozens,columns,d.streets,etc] but if u have a very srtong bet selection u really dont need progressions , in the last few months i ve devised a system that can do exactly what i describe above, to the point that the system produces progression by itself! and i never seen anything like this before even i ve searched in several forums , probably i ve discovered a very well kept secret , thats my feeling in anyway , believe me guys systems that need big br will fail at some point ,becoz of this , the big risk u take , a system that needs 100e to start with ,like mine, are much powerfull and can win long term ,short term ,and under any condition .

Online roulette is also very popular in Australia with many of the internet casino brands directly targeting Australians, resulting in a huge choice of roulette sites available to Australians. CasinoReef recommends Ruby Fortune casino as one of the top online roulette casinos available in AUD. For New Zealanders, CasinoKiwi recommends Jackpot city casino as the most popular choice for new Zealanders playing roulette online.